Tercel

Well I count about 8 verses in the pastorals not including the Pilate reference that suggest a historical Jesus. Obviously Doherty and I have slightly different conceptions of what counts as a reference to a HJ.

No doubt Doherty is correct though... no doubt what the writer really meant when he said Christ was human (1 Tim 2:5), descended from David (2 Tim 2:8), had come into the world (1 Tim 1:15), had been revealed in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16), gave sound words and teaching (1 Tim 6:3), and who's genealogy was a subject for debate (1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9) and so forth, was that Christ was a spiritual being.

I do however agree with Doherty that the Pastorals minus the Pilate give no more indication of the HJ than do the rest of the Paulines. Of course I count about 30 in the rest of the Paulines, while he counts just 1 (the interpolation). But that's probably just me again...

Vorkosigan

No doubt Doherty is correct though... no doubt what the writer really meant when he said Christ was human (1 Tim 2:5), descended from David (2 Tim 2:8), had come into the world (1 Tim 1:15), had been revealed in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16), gave sound words and teaching (1 Tim 6:3), and who's genealogy was a subject for debate (1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9) and so forth, was that Christ was a spiritual being.

Tercel --

Doherty discusses some of these alleged "evidences" for an HJ in the pastorals on 299-300 of the Jesus Puzzle. In 1 Tim 6:3 he sees the reference to our lord Jesus Christ as a scribal notation. As he points out, in all other places where the phrase "wholesome teachings" occurs, no source is given. In 1 Tim 1:10, the writer speaking as Paul, says these teachings "refer to the gospel entrusted to me."

You know, Tercel, I always make a bet with myself -- if I search all the references an apologist gives, how many will actually refer to the topic at hand? Usually it is a small minority. Once again, I win...

1 Tim 1:4 makes no reference to Jesus, nor does Titus 3:9.

1 Tim 1:15 does not tell us how Christ came into the world.

1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Tim 3:16 is the only thing that appears to refer to anything resembling a person. So actually, it is not 8 but only 2 references. What does Earl say about those?

Of course, 6:16 .... no man hath seen, nor can see...

clearly indicates that no god has ever been human.

Although I understand we are to take the plain meaning of the text only when it supports historicism.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

So he can make up creative explanations for each and every one... so what. Inerrantists make up creative explanations to defend inerrancy, YEC's construct fanciful theories to defend their beliefs. I don't give either of them the time of day. Why should I take any more notice of Doherty's ad hoc explanations?

Of course. :banghead:

I see... is this supposed to be the principle of induction as applied to scripture?

My NRSV translation reads "conforms" not "refer" in that verse and I can't see how it's relevant.

Well I'm not exactly an apologist. I just like discussing theology and related disciplines. On Conservative Christian boards I generally attack the Christian's positions. I only become an "Apologist" here because you guys are so negative.

Who else is it talking about?
It's just entirely coincidental that the Gospel genealogies contradict and the writer here tells his readers not to argue over genealogies...

? "...Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners..." is fairly self-explanatory. Just 'cos the writer doesn't say "he came into the world via being born of Mary" doesn't remove the fact that the writer is stating that he "came into the world". It's not like it's ambiguous: He either came into the world or he didn't, and the writer says he did. Sorry if black and white logic's too difficult for you, but really you do sound like the inerrantists: "Well it looks like it says that... but what it really means is something entirely different..."

No idea, I don't have the book. Obviously he cooks up something to defend his idea that there's no evidence of a historical Jesus in the Pastorals.

The only way I can make any sense of this verse is to assume that the "he" is referring to the Father not Jesus. Paul claims that it is because he has seen Jesus that he is an apostle, not to mention vs 14 looks forward to the future "manifestation" of JC: To then say that Jesus has never been seen nor ever can be makes no sense whatsoever. It also seems to echo John's Gospel that no man has seen God - meaning the Father.

Peter Kirby

Tercel writes: "It's just entirely coincidental that the Gospel genealogies contradict and the writer here tells his readers not to argue over genealogies..."

Hi, that's one legitimate interpretation. I am away from home and don't have my books, but I recall that there are many different interpretations of that reference: for example, it might refer to the "genealogies" of aeons and powers in the Gnostic systems, which could easily number in the dozens. Or, for another one, it could refer to the genealogies that Jews (or others) produced to justify their claim to a certain lineage (e.g. children of Abraham). Or it could refer to the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke, as you suggest. I am sure that there are more. Of course, if the Pastorals are dependent on Matthew and Luke, then they do little more to corroborate a human Jesus than someone like Justin Martyr does. If you are right, though, it might show that Doherty proves too much by including stuff that doesn't actually support his case. In that regard, the very late 2 Peter comes to mind, which is dependent on the Johannine appendix re: Peter's death, but which Doherty enlists for support anyway. Chapter and verse on request.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radorth

Questions for Doherty and those who give him credence:

How do JM's explain the widespread persecutions of Christians beginning in 67? If there was no crucified Jesus, what was it they were persecuted for believing in, exactly? What were the apostles talking about, or did they not go around preaching and writing letters? If they did not write the letters claimed, or preach an HJ, what did they preach? Did they write or preach nothing at all? If they did not, how did the myth become so widespread so early? If they did, where is the evidence? Are they myths as well?

Rad

Vorkosigan

w do JM's explain the widespread persecutions of Christians beginning in 67? If there was no crucified Jesus, what was it they were persecuted for believing in, exactly?

Were Christians persecuted for believing in Jesus? I thought they were persecuted for refusing to worship the Roman gods.

In any case, can you provide some kind of logical foundation for this weird question? Is it your assertion that people can only be persecuted if they have historicist assumptions?

Iasion

Greetings Tercel,

Sorry 'bout the mix-up before 8)
(And things are busy here - not much time just now.)


Yes,
we all know that - but so what?
Many people ASSUMED Jesus existed, then and now - is that an argument for his existence? Not in my view.

Did Celsus argue FOR a HJ?
No.

Did Celsus argue AGAINST an MJ?
No.


Yes, he made a assumption - so what?


What he also did was specifically argue at length that the Gospels were FICTION, based on MYTHS.

The Gospels are by far-and-away the major source of the historical Jesus - and just when the Gospels first came to light, Celsus explicitly attacks them as FICTION.

So,
he makes a contemporary argument that the foundation documents of the Jesus story are FICTION - which clearly and directly supports the MJ theory (he just never made the final leap that the whole thing was fiction).


Can you explain how YOU think a specific, contemporary, detailed attack on the Gospels as FICTION based on MYTH does not support the MJ theory?

Quentin

Tercel

In theory I would agree that Celsus' work counts as evidence against the idea that the Gospel's give an accurate portrayal of Jesus. However modernist scholars have for many many years accepted that idea and have been busy producing a long stream of "real" Jesus' out of their imagination: all without in any way giving creedence to the idea that Jesus never existed at all.

The idea that the Gospel accounts are inaccurate, or the subjects of later improvements, revisions etc, while damaging from a Conservative Christian point of view, is hardly support for Jesus' non-existence.

Given that in this case, the very person who is accusing the Gospels of misrepresenting Jesus is accusing them of doing so because he believes in a historical Jesus different to that portrayed in the Gospels, it's hardly stunning evidence for the idea that Jesus never existed at all. Rather, it shows that both sides of the debate -both anti-Christian and Christian- being agreed on one thing: That Jesus really existed.

Of course there is no reason to think that Celsus had any information about Jesus whatsoever save what he had learned from reading the Gospels and perhaps a few anti-Christian rumours he had heard from the Jews. There is no reason to think that his belief in the historical Jesus is based on anything more than "the Christians say so and I've no reason to doubt them", nor is there any reason to think that his accusations of "myth" and "monstrous fiction" are based on anything more than his own anti-Christian feelings.
The only remotely concerning accusation he makes is (IIRC) that he claims to have see Christians re-writing their scriptures. But given that we know anyway that Marcion was happily editing scripture and various semi-Christian sects were busily producing their own writings during the 2nd century, this doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. (Even assuming the accusation is not entirely ficticious)

Anyway, so no, I don't agree. If all Celsus did was attack the Gospels as being myth and fiction (and didn't elaborate on what he meant like he does) then yes that would clearly support the JM. But he doesn't, so it doesn't. Hence I think the use of a pruned quote which just has Celsus saying "myth" and "fiction" is misleading.

Radorth

Yes, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that is the only reason. Also, why should I summarily throw out Acts or date it so late? An early date has been defended well enough by Layman. And again the pile of conspiracies, forgeries, interpolations, burning and destruction of "evidence" asserted or implied here is far beyond my credulity.

As Durant said, these would require a greater miracle than anything recorded in the Gospels. (And yes Carrier DID say resurrection is not particularly miraculous)

Rad

capnkirk

In general the Romans were tolerant of the worship of "other" gods by the peoples of conquered lands. The Jews made an exception of themselves because they would not tolerate worship of the Roman gods (either the mythical ones or the self-declared ones like Julius Caesar). It was this refusal that precipitated repraisals from Rome. This was exacerbated by the "prophesy" of a Jewish messiah who would throw off the Roman yoke. From the Roman point of view, this linked Jewish religion with sedition and rebellion against Rome.

In the light of this background, it makes it very difficult to separate out the various factors in the persecution of Christians, and tends to obscure any evidence of an HJ.

Remember also that most of the persecuted Christians were Jewish converts living in Jewish enclaves in occupied Greece (Corinthians, Philippians, Thessalonians) or other provinces (Ephesians, Galatians, etc.), and that their primary source of information about "christ" and christianity derived from Paul's letters. Their knowledge of Jesus and his mission was necessarily a reflection of Paul's.